Cillian Sheridan

Do me the courtesy of Answering mine first as it was asked first
then i will

 

Mr McEwan, are you not capable of anything other than expletives? Do you by any chance have the educational attainment of your average Scotsman? Even if not everyone agrees with you, try to contribute something constructive.
<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
I would be interested to know what you were thinking when you typed that. “I’ll show him” perhaps. Well then old squeeze, consider me well and truly shown then.
<o> </o>
Mind not just “pish” but “pure pish”

 

OK I will answer your rhetorical question. I do not think that less people will get sick, especially in an increasing population, with more elderly as a proportion of the population than ever before. I don’t think it needs to double though as it did between 2001-2010.
<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
Now the moment of truth. You see I must confess I too have asked a rhetorical question. There is no answer other to pretend the government between 1979 and 1988 reduced the budget of the NHS in Scotland or the UK as a whole. Historical fact proves otherwise.

 

Mr Oxford Dictionary, can you spell my name right please?

I want you to address the Sheridan malarkey, I don't care about Thatcher. Take your uppity patter somewhere else cos it is boring the absolute baws off the lot of us.

I bet you are sitting there tugging your wee purple headed yoghurt launcher, loving all this attention.

I wasn't blessed with high intellect, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

Just kidding, I have a lot more common sense than you and a bit of patter. It's worked for me so far.

Get off your high horse pal, watch you don't break your legs on the way down... that would be a real shame.

 

therein lies the rub,it wasn't rhetorical.

Are less people getting poorly?

Are fewer people needing medical help?

If you won't answer this truthfully then i won't answer you.

 

Touched a nerve have I? You write a post saying someone is talking pish. What am I supposed to think of you as a person?

 

You are talking pish though...

and you haven't touched a nerve, thought my tongue in cheek reply would of shown that.

 

Pretty sure I said more people will get sick and more people will need medical help. One is the inverse of the other is it not? By claiming I am not answering your rhetorical question gives you another excuse not to answer what the * red card protest was about? A pack of lies that the NHS budget was being reduced.
<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
That the thing about Thatcher haters, push them hard enough and they can’t answer with economic theory or even historical fact for fear they look foolish.

 

Over half of the players in the EPL earn less than £25k per week .
Remember the striker who drove from the midlands to sign for
old Harry , on the transfer deadline , he was on £7,500 per week .

 

No you didn't until now.


Your main point was the increase in the NHS spending,no mention of the
increase in care needed.

A half truth from people like yourself is usually good enough to hide behind

So i'm out you little tinker/troller

 

Do you mean Kevin Doyle from Wolves who are a league 1 outfit?
<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
If that is true, it must be the executives that are stealing all the money. What is your source for this? Why the * isn’t the Celtic squad full of EPL players then? I don’t mean Suarez or Augero, but the likes of Long, Jelavic and Chamakh? Darren Bent would be good for Celtic.

 

from Sheridan, to thatcher, to the NHS, dear *. good way to stop people posting on this site the countless trolling.

 

At the 2010 spending review the coalition promised they would increase the NHS budget year-on-year in real terms.

The increase was the smallest possible rise imaginable – 0.1 per cent a year over the next four years.

So it wasn’t a “cut” but it amounted to one of the biggest squeezes on resources since the health service was founded in 1948.

The NHS had been used to getting average year-on-year budget rises of about 7 per cent on average under Labour, and experts like the King’s Fund said 1 per cent a year was the minimum growth needed to absorb the rising cost of an ageing population and other demographic pressures.

The tiny scale of the above-inflation rise also meant the government would always be vulnerable to changes in inflation if it wanted to keep its promise.

A small adjustment to the rate of inflation could turn a real-terms rise into a cut overnight. The government “was sailing perilously close to the wind”, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) put it.

Today, according to shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, the boat tipped over. The Labour frontbencher accused Mr Cameron of “betraying the NHS”.

Health minister Simon Burns replied by insisting that “the government has met its promised to provide a real terms increase in the health budget”. Spending on “frontline” services was also up and NHS trusts had managed to build up a surplus to spend next year, the minister added.

Was this a good news day for the government or another broken promise?

The analysis

Andy Burnham’s ammunition comes from these new Treasury figures, which show the actual amount spend by each government department in 2011/12.

In real terms, allowing for adjustments to inflation, the outturn for NHS (health) fell from £104.353bn to £104.333bn.

That’s a fall of 0.02 per cent or £20 million, which means numerous ministerial promises to increase NHS spending have proved, albeit by the tiniest of margins, to be false.



Cillian nice guy won't take us forward

 

Just ignore me and your Sheridan patter then.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that the list of strikers you posted are worse then Sheridan. Pretty sure it was every striker in the Lennon era except Hooper.

 

If this is true that amounts to an 84% increase over a 9 year period, not 100%. My error, sorry. What was the extra money used for? Executive pay. Not extra doctors, nurses, treatments or drugs. Also we could not afford that 84% increase over 9 years. It was paid for by debt. That is to say taxpayers will have to pay it in future. Why is when anyone says the NHS budget is to be squeezed that it amounts to a reduction of treatments for patients when this already happens. It may reduce money for bureaucratic and hangers on.

 

Just you wait ,,,,it get's better:smiley-laughing002:

 

where do you see that figure of 84%

* me pink you don't even try to hide it

 

Just popped into this thread. Cillian Sheridan ? NHS spending ? My * this place is nuts :smiley-laughing002:

 

I love it though :smiley-laughing002:

I'm just slightly confused as to why nobody has mentioned the fiscal policy of medieval Scotland.